home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!msaladin
- From: msaladin@students.uiuc.edu (Saladino Michael D)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: One hardware-basher's manifesto
- Date: 29 Feb 1996 23:05:39 GMT
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- Message-ID: <4h5bg3$fgf@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
- References: <4ge8na$vhe@ar.ar.com.au> <08000305729070351637@BIRDLAND> <4guenp$1a1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4h2m3t$sd4@ar.ar.com.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.cso.uiuc.edu
-
- storm@ar.ar.com.au (Storm) writes:
-
- >Saladino Michael D (msaladin@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
- >: >> : > Please use OwnBlitter/DisOwn... and use CacheControl to turn on only the caches
- >: >> : > you need (If data burst (030/040/060) modes is on the CPU will take 4x as much
- >: >> : > time when accessing fastram randomly.
-
- >#1 Format your post to 80 columns.. that was almost unreadable!
-
- I read my newsgroups through an Extreme and their term really doesn't care.
-
- >#2 Nobody suggested killing CACHES.. he was talking about the DATA BURST mode,
- >which fills the cache 4 (?) longwords at a time rather than 1 on an 030.
-
- I know what burst mode is, and he's still wrong. First, the message does say to
- use CacheControl to turn on only the caches you need. That sure as hell sounds
- like someone was suggesting that we turn caches off. If that was wrong then
- sorry. However, the statement was still wrong because he says that bursting
- four words into the cache takes four times the speed of reads one. That's
- just not true. Why would we have burst unless... here's the punchline...
- it didn't read them considerably faster. As a matter of fact it hits
- about the same time to read two. That's why it's called burst.
-
- >But with the BURST mode on,
- >and relatively random memory access (we'll pretend you never made that "programs
- >don't access RAM randomly" generalisation), you will find yourself wasting time
- >bursting 4 longwords into the cache instead of 1, when the other 3 will not
- >be used (or probably not be used).
-
- True. If you are actually accessing memory "randomly" then I guess burst
- would be bad. Could you please give me an example of accessing RAM in a
- random way. I'm sitting here trying to come up with something beyond wierd
- screen effects, and even then I would suggest against it. Are you so arrogant
- as to think that you are the ONLY task running. What about the other forty
- that run significantly faster with burst on. And, don't tell me that it
- switches on and off with task switching, cuz it doesn't. Now, if you are
- still coding for A500s and 020 bases A1200s then I guess you take over
- the machine and then you can assume that. But, if this is the case, God
- when is my little Amiga community going to step up to the ninties. I'm
- used to people using P120s and multiprocessing R4600s. I never thought
- that raw horsepower could out do the elegnace of the Amiga, but I think
- after staying pretty much still for a decade, it has. In other words,
- thinking of a machine, especially our beautiful Amiga, as a single tasking
- machine is a practice that I want to help kill. O.K., I'm straying off
- topic and this isn't directed towards you because you never said these
- things, but I know their are people out there that do think like this.
-
- >Your reply is appreciated, but why do I get the impression that you just saw
- >the words "cache" and "off" in the same sentence and unleashed a paragraph
- >from a comp sci textbook, without actually checking what was being discussed?
-
- Actually, I saw "turn off caches you don't need" and proceeded to explain
- that you always need ALL your caches. Burst is NOT a seperate cache, it's
- just an alternate form of filling it. People should say what they mean if
- they want people to understand them.
-